Wa/106/2020 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Udupi District Tappers Co-Operative Federation Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR -WRIT APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2020 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, C.R. BUILDING N.G.ROAD, ATTAVARA AAYAKAR BHAVAN, C.R. BUILDING N.G.ROAD, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE BENGALURU-560 500. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE BENGALURU-560 500. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD, UDUPI-576 103. ... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI NEERALGI JEEVANBABU JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s UDUPI DISTRICT TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. R.R.COMPLEX, KUNJAL ROAD BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 213 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE- MR.RAVIKARA ... RESPONDENT --- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2019 IN W.P. NO.35905/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The appellants are the respondents before the learned Single Judge. 2. From paragraph 4 of the impugned order, it appears that an order of remand has been passed by the consent of the parties. By the said order, the order at Annexure-C to the writ petition, being an order under sub-section (2) (b) Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the matter in accordance with law. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that consent was given by the appellants on the basis of the judgment and order dated 19[th] September, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. He pointed out that against the said order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal has been preferred in which the order of the learned Single Judge has been stayed. 4. If that be so, the remedy of the appellants is before the learned Single Judge. If the appellants want to withdraw their consent on the ground of a subsequent order of stay, the appellants will have to apply to the learned Single Judge seeking permission to withdraw such a consent. Hence, no interference is called for in the appeal against the impugned order, which is passed by the consent of the parties. 5. Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is disposed of. All pending applications do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE vgh* Sd/- JUDGE